search for: 852d

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "852d".

Did you mean: 852
2011 May 20
1
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
...t;kill>, %r4 ... 844L %reg16511:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16478:lo16<kill>; Accum:%reg16511,16478 Considering merging %reg16478 with reg%16511 to Accum RHS = %reg16478,0.000000e+00 = [804d,844d:0) 0 at 804d LHS = %reg16511,0.000000e+00 = [836d,844d:1)[844d,852d:0) 0 at 844d 1 at 836d Interference! It seems that there is a Live range from the first COPY to the store, which interferes with the second COPY, which should have been coalesced. I find it worrisome that LLVM is not recognizing sub-registers apart from the super register. I would like...
2011 May 19
0
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below: > > 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>; > 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>; > 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3, > > As you can
2011 May 19
3
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
Hi, I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below: 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>; 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>; 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3, As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though the super-register is used at